Hoare really makes a case to proving that Moby Dick is a hotshot of a book. I can immediately tell how passionate he is about it with every single word he uses to describe it. Simply calling it “good” seems a bit too simple, but I can’t necessarily judge it until I’ve obviously read it. His opening line is what really helped me form my initial opinion. “For years, ‘Moby-Dick’ defeated me.” I can already imagine not only the length of the book, but the boredom to get to me quickly in the midst of reading about a mutiny, a whale, and a dude named Ishmael. Even so, I think the way he puts Moby Dick on such a high horse pedestal sounds a little too far? Sure, a book can be life changing to this extent, but can I really expect this about Moby Dick?

Hoare mentions how “It’s barely a book at all. It’s more an act of transference, of ideas and evocations hung around the vast and unknowable shape of the whale…” and honestly, based off of my initial knowledge, I’d have to slightly disagree with that statement. A book is a book, and while a book could be different for someone else, it’s still something that tells a story. A story is already ideas, evocations, and unknowable to anyone but the author and intended audience. There’s no incorrect way to read something, but then again, why is a whale such a center part in the 1800’s? What’s missing other than sitting down and cracking the book open to dive right into the vast ocean? With the way Hoare speaks about it, I’m just sincerely hoping that the book really does knock my socks off. I’d kind of hate to be disappointed after being hyped up after reading his article. I hadn’t necessarily though about the book’s impact on others either, it just goes to show how lots of different pieces of literature stand the test of time.